Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT reversed the CIT(A) and AO's determination that appellant was an assessee-in-default under s.201(1) for failure to deduct TDS under s.194IA. The Tribunal held that since payments to individual sellers (21,83,680 and 31,83,680) were each below the 50,00,000 threshold, s.194IA provisions were not applicable, following Bhikhabhai H. Patel. The CIT(A) failed to address the legal issues raised by appellant or examine the transaction structure in light of judicial precedent. Consequently, the demand under s.201(1) and interest under s.201(1A) were deleted, rendering moot the remaining grounds concerning s.2(14)(iii), proviso to s.201(1), Explanation to s.191, and penalty under s.271C.
ITAT reversed the CIT(A) and AO's determination that appellant was an assessee-in-default under s.201(1) for failure to deduct TDS under s.194IA. The Tribunal held that since payments to individual sellers (21,83,680 and 31,83,680) were each below the 50,00,000 threshold, s.194IA provisions were not applicable, following Bhikhabhai H. Patel. The CIT(A) failed to address the legal issues raised by appellant or examine the transaction structure in light of judicial precedent. Consequently, the demand under s.201(1) and interest under s.201(1A) were deleted, rendering moot the remaining grounds concerning s.2(14)(iii), proviso to s.201(1), Explanation to s.191, and penalty under s.271C.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.